It's fine if you want to keep the declensional system of Classical Latin intact, but if so you need to go back to an earlier form of the language than Vulgar Latin and derive your conlang from that.

Ok, lets get one thing straight here, what I stated in my last post was in no way offensive. You need to take a chill pill buddy!

I'm confused. This is what I see:You: "rosem"Him: "The -m was silent long before Vulgar Latin."You: "Well, no one really knows."Him: "That's like saying 'no one knows if they really spoke Latin, we have no recordings"You: "I didn't say anything offensive! Take a chill pill!"

I don't understand where anything offensive came from...am I missing some part of the conversation?

linguoboy wrote: If you wanna play that game, then we can't be 100% certain that anyone in Ancient Rome ever actually spoke Latin at all. After all, we don't have any recordings of them doing it.

Okay, clearly we've gotten off on the wrong foot. This is what I love about not talking face to face (not) you tell what someone's tone is about a particular set of words. It was your statement above that seemed to me like you were attacking me. I apologize for that misconception..... my bad! 1. I realize I'm not your buddy, again my statement about the use of buddy was taken the wrong way (gotta love electronic communication). 2. There were no orders being given at all, again things can be taken the wrong way when people cannot be face to face talking to one another. 3. So again I apologize for taking things the wrong way and hope that this little incident won't get in the way of either of us getting along in this forum.

This is very interesting. Thank you for posting it, locuroso. But is this supposed to be a conlang, or not? If it's not, then why is it under "conlangery"? This sort of thing is called "reconstruction" and not "conlanging". If this is a conlang you are welcome to post it in this section, but it might be better to move it into a different category of threads if not.

Tikolm wrote:This is very interesting. Thank you for posting it, locuroso. But is this supposed to be a conlang, or not? If it's not, then why is it under "conlangery"? This sort of thing is called "reconstruction" and not "conlanging".

Locuroso wasn't trying to reconstruct Vulgar Latin--that's already been done. This is a proposal for a romlang with more Classical Latin elements than is typical for such a project.

Moreover, scholarly reconstruction really is a kind of conlanging. I don't think there's anyone out there who believes that the spoken language of the Indo-European tribes ever looked exactly like reconstructed Proto-Indo-European. This is simply an elaborate model, one which we know full well to be incomplete and inexact. When someone actually tries to speak it, then we have no hesitation classifying it as a conlang.

Tikolm wrote:This is very interesting. Thank you for posting it, locuroso. But is this supposed to be a conlang, or not? If it's not, then why is it under "conlangery"? This sort of thing is called "reconstruction" and not "conlanging".

Locuroso wasn't trying to reconstruct Vulgar Latin--that's already been done. This is a proposal for a romlang with more Classical Latin elements than is typical for such a project.

Locuroso didn't say that this was a conlang - he/she was trying to reconstruct Vulgar Latin. Where did you hear that this was really a romlang? I didn't.

linguoboy wrote:Moreover, scholarly reconstruction really is a kind of conlanging. I don't think there's anyone out there who believes that the spoken language of the Indo-European tribes ever looked exactly like reconstructed Proto-Indo-European. This is simply an elaborate model, one which we know full well to be incomplete and inexact. When someone actually tries to speak it, then we have no hesitation classifying it as a conlang.

I suppose it is a kind of conlanging, but that's not its real intent, just like Locuroso's intent wasn't really to make a conlang. At least I don't think it was. What was your real intent, Locuroso?

Tikolm wrote:This is very interesting. Thank you for posting it, locuroso. But is this supposed to be a conlang, or not? If it's not, then why is it under "conlangery"? This sort of thing is called "reconstruction" and not "conlanging".

Locuroso wasn't trying to reconstruct Vulgar Latin--that's already been done. This is a proposal for a romlang with more Classical Latin elements than is typical for such a project.

Locuroso didn't say that this was a conlang - he/she was trying to reconstruct Vulgar Latin. Where did you hear that this was really a romlang? I didn't.

He posted it in "Conlangery", didn't he? You assume this was an error, that possibly he didn't realise there was a forum called "Extinct Languages". But I think it makes more sense to assume he knew exactly what he was doing. Particularly in light of what he says in the OP:

1. This language is an attempt to recreate Vulgar Latin, if it still existed today.2. I am not familiar with the IPA format or any others, so bear with me on the alphabet3. The language is supposed to resemble modern Romance Languages, as I stated this language is what I feel Vulgar Latin would look like if it still existed today, therefore there would be some borrowings from romance.

Twice he says that he wants to present what "Vulgar Latin would look like if it still existed today" [my emphasis]. A reconstruction would be an attempt to present Vulgar Latin as it looked back when we know it to have been spoken.

Moreover, he goes on to say that there would be "borrowings from romance". How could actual Vulgar Latin borrow from Romance when it was the ancestor of Romance? To borrow from Romance, you'd have to be a contemporary of it. So it's clear to me what's really under discussion is a romlang--a conlang derived from the same sources as the actual attested Romance languages. He's just emphasising that it would be much more conservative than the typical romlang, i.e. it would more like Vulgar Latin than any contemporary Romance variety.